MARCH 16

Comrades, we have heard here incredibly sharp expressions, the sharpest of which, it seems, was the accusation that our resolution is slanderous. But there are such sharp expressions that expose themselves. You have the resolution. You know that we took two representatives of the "Workers' Opposition" into the Central Committee and that we used the term "deviation." I emphasize its significance. Neither Shlyapnikov nor Medvedev proposed another word. We here criticized theses that were criticized also by representatives of all tendencies. How can one speak of slander after this? If we had attributed to people something that was factually refuted, then this sharp word would make sense. Now it is simply an expression of a certain irritation. It is an unserious objection!

Now I shall turn to those points that were noted here. There was an indication that injustice was shown to the group of "Democratic Centralism." You followed how an agreement between the groups developed and how opinions were exchanged on the question of selection to the Central Committee—a matter touched upon here by representatives of the "Democratic Centralism" group. You know that, beginning with a private meeting at which the "Workers' Opposition" group was present in full and a number of the most prominent comrades, representatives of all tendencies, were also present, I personally had to speak openly in favor of representatives of the "Workers' Opposition" and "Democratic Centralism" groups being desirable in our Central Committee for us. No one
108
V. I. LENIN
at that meeting, where all comrades from the "Workers' Opposition" and representatives of all tendencies were present, refuted this. It is perfectly clear that if we, as a result, received from the "Democratic Centralism" group a candidate rather than a member of the Central Committee—this was the result of a prolonged exchange of opinions, an agreement between the groups. And to see in this any distrust or injustice toward the "Democratic Centralism" group is simply carping. We did everything that needed to be done in order to emphasize our desire to be just, in the Central Committee. This is a fact that cannot be struck out. And to draw a conclusion about injustice is carping! Or, for example, a comrade from the "Democratic Centralism" group argued that paragraph 7 of the resolution is unnecessary: the Central Committee has that right anyway. We propose not to publish paragraph 7 because we hope that its application will not be necessary—it is an extreme measure. But when a comrade from the "Democratic Centralism" group says: "You had that right according to the statute,"47—he does not know the statute, does not know the principles of democratic centralism, does not know the principles of centralism. That the Central Committee, elected at the Congress, would have the right to expel one of its own members—no democracy, no centralism has ever permitted such a thing. (A voice: "Through the party.") Especially through the party. The Congress elects the Central Committee, by doing this it expresses the highest confidence, by doing this it entrusts the leadership. And that the Central Committee should have such a right in relation to its own member—our party has never anywhere permitted anything of the sort. This is an extreme measure that is adopted specially in the consciousness of danger in the situation. Comrade Radek explained this quite correctly. An exceptional plenary session is convened: the Central Committee, plus candidates, plus the Control Commission with equal voting rights. Such an institution, such a plenum in
109
X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
It only shows that the party applies what you have heard about, in the presence of such disagreements that on one side have approached the possibility of a split. We are not children—we have seen hard times, we have seen splits and lived through them, and we know how painful they are, and we are not afraid to call the danger by its name.

Were there at previous congresses, in the midst of the sharpest disagreements, such moments that on one side touched upon a split? There were not. Are there now? There are. All this was pointed out repeatedly. So with these disagreements, I think, we can struggle.

Further it was said that unity is not created by such resolutions, that allegedly criticism according to the resolution should be directed exclusively through gubernial committees, that there is allegedly some distrust expressed toward comrades from the "Workers' Opposition," which makes their presence in the Central Committee more difficult. But this is entirely untrue! I indicated from the very beginning why the word "deviation" was chosen. If you do not like it, submit this resolution, having accepted it as the basis, to the presidium for possible softening. If we find a softer word, then I would propose putting it in place of the word "deviation," and also making softening amendments in other places. We will not object to this. Now, of course, it is not the time to occupy ourselves with such details. Submit the resolution to the presidium for editing, for softening. Intensification is unthinkable here—I will not object to this. But when they say that this resolution means setting one part of the party against another, then again this is untrue.

I do not know the composition of the "Workers' Opposition" group in Samara, I have not been there, but I am convinced that if any Central Committee member of any tendency, or any Congress member of any tendency except the "Workers' Opposition," were to prove at a meeting of the Samara organization that there is no setting against in the resolution, but rather a call to unity and an attraction of the majority of the "Workers' Opposition" to one's side, he would be able to do it. When such an expression as "setting against" is used here, they forget about point five of the unity resolution, which speaks of recognition of the merits of the "Workers' Opposition." Is that not placed alongside? On the one hand, they "admit a deviation," and on the other hand, read paragraph five: "The Congress declares at the same time that on questions that have attracted particular attention, for example, by the group of the so-called 'Workers' Opposition,' concerning the purging of the party of non-proletarian and unreliable elements, concerning the struggle against bureaucratism, concerning the development of democracy and workers' self-activity, etc., any and all practical proposals must be considered with the greatest attention,"* etc. Is that setting against? That is recognition of merits. We say: on the one hand, you in the discussion displayed a deviation that is politically dangerous, and even the resolution of Comrade Medvedev

When a comrade from the "Workers' Opposition" is included in the Central Committee, this is an expression of comradely confidence. And after this, when someone goes to a meeting not inflamed by factional struggle, that meeting will say that there is no setting against here, but an expression of comradely confidence. As for the very extreme measure, this refers to the future; we are not applying it now and we are expressing comradely confidence at the present time. If you find that we are theoretically wrong, then we have the possibility to publish dozens of collections, and if there are young comrades, for example, in the Samara organization, who have something new to say on this question, then—please, comrades from Samara! We will publish several of your articles. After all, there is not a single person who does not understand the difference between what is said at the Congress and what is thrown at workers. The party does not waver in what it does, but in any case at a workers' meeting we will not speak about what Comrade Kamensky spoke about and what he had the right to speak about before the party Congress. If you compare the exact text of the resolution, you will see that here a theoretical, principled indication is made, there is nothing offensive here, and alongside this there is recognition of merit in the struggle against bureaucratism, an expression of the desire to receive help, and besides, representatives of this group are included in the Central Committee, and this is a manifestation of the highest confidence, greater than which cannot exist in the party. That is why, comrades, I propose that we adopt both these resolutions, adopting them by roll-call vote, then submit them to the presidium for editing, for softening the formulation, and since Comrade Shlyapnikov is part of the presidium, he may perhaps find a more suitable expression in place of the word "deviation."

And regarding the announced resignations, I propose to adopt the following resolution: "The Congress calls upon all members of the dissolved 'Workers' Opposition' group to submit to party discipline, obliges them to remain in their assigned posts, and does not accept the resignation of Comrade Shlyapnikov and any other resignations."

112
V. I. LENIN